Class Mattered - (how the rich won the election)

[sandnsea]

"FOR ALL THE TALK OF HOW RELIGIOUS voters made Bush's victory possible, their performance didn't change from 2000 to 2004. Four years ago, those attending church once a week or more were 42 percent of the electorate and gave Bush 59 percent of their vote--for a performance of 25 percent (that is, 42 percent multiplied by 59 percent). In 2004, these voters were 41 percent of the electorate and gave Bush 61 percent of their votes, for a performance of 25 percent--no change from 2004.

By contrast, Bush improved his performance with voters at the upper end of the income ladder. Among those making less than $50,000, Bush actually lost ground, as his performance fell from 21 percent in 2000 to 20 percent in 2004. Among those making over $50,000, Bush's performance jumped 3 points, from 28 percent to 31 percent. And most of this improved performance was concentrated among the wealthiest of voters, those making over $100,000. In this group, increases in turnout and support for Bush raised the president's performance from 8 percent to 10 percent. In fact, Bush's gains among the wealthiest Americans account for a good chunk of his popular-vote margin of victory."

http://www.inequality.org/klinkner.htm

[aquart]

1. And that makes up for the votes he lost everywhere else?

So the percentage of Bush-voting rich would be what percentage of registered voters?

[sandnsea]

3. Slow brain day

I don't understand your question.

I personally think it was probably a combination of minor vote shifting, but I think Bush mostly won in the suburbs, which is both wealthier people AND family/moral values. I also don't rule out vote fraud, but it hasn't been proven.

Bad input - bad conclusions. More to think about, that's why I posted it.

[Burma Jones]

2. It's all about the Greed

When I worry about the Fundie influence, I reassure myself that it's all about greed. I understand greed, I do not fear it like I do Religious Fundamentalism. That's not to say I agree with it, nor do I embrace the "Greed is Good" philosophy, but at least I feel a little more comfortable with greed than fervor..........

[phantom power]

4. At least greed implies some measure of rational self-interest.

Fundamentalists and idealogues scare the crap out of me, because I can't even rely on their own self-interest to moderate their actions. To wit: I can count on a greedy person to avoid destroying the world, but all bets are off with a fundamentalist.

[InvisibleBallots]

5. the neo-Libertarian types

"Among those making over $50,000, Bush's performance jumped 3 points, from 28 percent to 31 percent. And most of this improved performance was concentrated among the wealthiest of voters, those making over $100,000. In this group, increases in turnout and support for Bush raised the president's performance from 8 percent to 10 percent. In fact, Bush's gains among the wealthiest Americans account for a good chunk of his popular-vote margin of victory.""

They aren't afraid of the fundies, they know perfectly well they aren't a threat. They are voting their pocketbooks, and we Democrats *refuse* to run a populist campaign. Why?